Greenhouse
While the divestment discussion at the Greenhouse may have ended at 8:30pm on October 5th, the backyard remained full even after the three administrators present left the house. It was apparent that the event left many students, faculty and staff disappointed and discontent with the outcome.
We hope that the takeaway from the event is that this effort is by no means over, but rather sits within a frame of present student dissatisfaction and administrative inaction. Rob Pearigen rightfully acknowledged the inability of the University to fulfill its promises from over two years ago, but the event still ended lacking in commitments. What students need now are straightforward answers from the University, in a reasonable timeframe; nearly a decade is by no means meaningful effort towards change, especially with a student consciousness that cycles every four years. Now is the time for prompt, timely change from those with power of influence—if not the University administration, then the Investment Management Committee of the Board of Regents.
We will now take the time to respond to some of the propositions from our administration on ethical investing, and outline requests from the Greenhouse that we expect to be given full consideration, with meaningful action taken towards their adoption.
Claim #1: Stakeholder influence is a workable alternative to divestment
We reject this claim as irrelevant to our mission in divesting. Administrators proposed that stakeholder engagement with companies is just as effective in disincentivizing unethical practices as divesting from said companies. However, engagement is unhelpful when we are discussing companies whose essential business model is unethical: Lockheed Martin profits directly from genocide, and their product is war; for-profit prisons’ business model is exploitation; gas companies’ mission is extraction. Stakeholder engagement, in the context of essential misalignment of values, is an inherently fruitless endeavor.
Claim #2: Ethical investment portfolios are “risky”
This claim is not sufficiently supported by published research. While we view economic performance to be beside the point given concerns of genocide, exploitation of incarcerated people, and global warming, ESG investment has been shown countless times to have positive impact on both performance and risk reduction. The idea that more limited portfolios are “riskier” might make sense in theory. But, in actuality, the data is not so definitive or unequivocal.
Claim #3: Sustainable practices on campus outweigh divestment impacts
As much as we support actions toward making our campus more efficient—hooking up more dorms to our central cooling, finally recycling on campus, encouraging biking—these moves and divestment are by no means mutually exclusive. It is also a moment to clarify that while divestment can be considered a “sustainable” choice, sustainability as a term is liquid and can be utilized both as an all-inclusive term or an exclusionary mode. To clarify our position: we are concerned about investments in fossil fuels and their contribution to global environmental crises, but we are too concerned about funding weapons manufacturers actively profiting from ethnic cleansing in Palestine, or private prisons acting as detention centers for ICE kidnappings. Divestment would aim to detach Sewanee from many industries that may or may not fall under the “unsustainable” umbrella, but regardless engage in immoral practices contrary to the University’s missions.
Ultimately, other arguments were made against divestment by administrators, including that it is a long, difficult process. However, it should be readily apparent that making the inconvenient, but ethical decision is a far better course of action than easy, morally indefensible inaction.
Therefore, we will outline our asks to administration as follows:
Appeal 1: Commit formally to the goals of the 2025 ESG Advisory Report, including persistent pursuit of divestment as a University.
Appeal 2: Make clear, in a public written statement, current actions by the University to fulfill the ESG Committee’s prescriptions and past commitments from 2024 with an actionable timeline.
Appeal 3: If administration does not believe itself to be the right avenue for effecting desired changes, facilitate contact between the Investment Management Committee and students by disclosing the contact information of its members.
Appeal 4: Provide a written and public facing response to these appeals within a month—this allows for fulfilment of the promised sustainability report, which was purported to make strides toward transparency—alongside commitment to continued dialogue at the Greenhouse in November, at a time and date that works for students, faculty, staff, and administrators. This way, progress will be held accountable as it happens, and everyone can address concerns in a timely manner.
Thank you for reading and for attending our event this past Monday—we hope that these concerns and appeals will be taken with the weight they deserve, and we look forward to future progress on ethical investment of our endowment. We also encourage other student organizations to reach out so we can make future events reflective of their campus-wide reach. Contact anybody at the Greenhouse!